.xxx adult entertainment domain approved by internet regulators

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Plans to establish a new internet domain specifically for pornography are to proceed after internet regulators approved the .xxx suffix for adult entertainment sites, three years on from a decision to block the move.

Proposals to create a new adults-only domain date back as far as 2003 when moves to open up the number of major domain names were announced by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), which administers millions of internet addresses.

However, Icann blocked the plan in 2007 after long deliberations and threats in the US from the Bush government, which opposed the creation of .xxx on moral grounds and said it would override Icann if necessary.

On Friday, the board of Icann said that it would allow the .xxx domain to be overseen by ICM Registry – the backer of the scheme – although a number of board members reportedly opposed the resolution.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/19/xxx-domain-suffix-adult-entertainment

[BadGimp]

1. Let me be the first to say it...

"The Internet Is For Porn!"

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=JpdCJKPHzh8

[alp227]

10. better url

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpdCJKPHzh8

[KurtNYC]

2. this story broke June of 2010 or earlier

Here is PC World Jun 25

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/199851/icann_board_approves_dotxxx_toplevel_domain_for_porn.html

But thanks for the tip -- it was news to me.

I wonder if sex.xxx is taken ?

edit to add: apologies -- this is a new development in the story. between June and now, ICANN did due diligence on ICM and now approve them.

:hide:

[blogslut]

4. This is a new story

What happened back in June was that ICANN approved the ICM registry's proposal. Today, the ICANN board officially approved the implementation of the dot xxx domain - despite protestations from numerous governments, industry professionals and ICANN's own Government Advisory Committee.

[LiberalFighter]

3. The same should be done for area code phone numbers

Use 666

[happyslug]

28. Area Codes are ASSIGNED without regard to who gets it, NOT the same a XXX

.xxx is something a person who WANTS that designation or WANTS to go to XXX sight, an Area code with 666 is NOT assigned the same way Area Codes are signed per area you are living in when you first obtain a phone number. If 666 is assigned you (or assigned to someone you want to call) you have to use 666. That is the difference, why force someone to use something they object to? .xxx does NOT force someone to use .xxx, thus it is something someone who objects to .xxx can avoid. .xxx is NOT assigned to someone UNLESS .xxx is desired by the person. That is the difference, it sounds minor but it is important to those people who dislike 666 and .xxx

Please note it is NOW possible to move your area code out of the district it is assigned to, but area codes numbers are still assigned by area, to even ask for the area code 666 you have to live in an area where 666 is assigned furthermore most businesses will avoid 666 like the plague, any loss of sale is never acceptable so most businesses will avoid 666. Thus you have two large groups who will do anything to avoid using the number 666, even move out of the area where the area code 666 is assigned (thus no one else what 666 for their area).

The problem is that in the 1990s the FCC did NOT want to set up a Parallel set of area codes for faxes and cell phones. This is what Europe did at that time period i.e instead of something like 666-666-6666 you would have a fax number 2-666-666-6666 or a cell phone [phone] while the conventional numbers would have stayed the same (local calls would assume local area code so all you would have to call is 666-6666).

The problem the FCC had was there was areas in this country in the 1990s that you could call people by dialing four numbers (the system assumed national, area code, regional area and then you only had to type in four numbers, if you typed in seven, it assumed you wanted out of the area).

Thus to adopt a number system separate for faxes and cell phones, you had to FORCE the phone companies to upgrade these rural phones NOT in the 10 years the phone companies were looking at but in a year or two (Something the phone companies did not want to do).

Thus to save some money in the 1990s is forcing us to spend even more money today. A separate number system should be adopted for Cell Phone and Faxes, it should have been done in the early 1990s but 20 years late is NOT to late.

[LiberalFighter]

35. Since 666 is not possible supposedly. 866 should be.

Or some specific area code designated for that business.

I agree on the separate number for cell and faxes. I was trying to push for it when they split our area into 3 area codes a few years back.

[hunter]

5. RepublicansGoneWild.xxx

NewtGingrichHardOnAmerica.xxx

RidingRonaldReagan.xxx

The possibilities are endless...

:woohoo:

[Cieran_WI]

8. LOL! n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

25. SarahDoesDallas.xxx

MichellesDeepThroat.xxx

[quakerboy]

31. That would surely be the end of that

I mean, unless you have the goods, all the politicians are gonna be really angry when they are disappointed after a visit.

Speaking of which, ridingronaldreagan.com is not yet a website. shame that.

Republicansgonewild.com is, apparently. Although its contentless at this time.

[krispos42]

6. After threats from the Bush Administration?

Gee, lookkit that... restricting free enterprise and capitalism.

[blogslut]

7. The Obama administration opposed it as well

This TLD isn't about free speech but it certainly about capitalism - namely lining Stewart Lawley's pockets to the tune of 60.00 per domain.

[boppers]

11. 219,708 names already "reserved".

At 60 a pop, that's $13,182,480 dollars.

[blogslut]

14. There's also an added $10.00 fee that goes to

...a special approval board that is part of Lawley's scheme. So it's really going to cost $70.00 per domain name per year.

[jberryhill]

18. Take 12 million off the top

Because that is the position ICM is starting from.

[davepc]

9. This should of happened in 1995.

[Celtic Raven]

12. Absolutely

Common sense move as far as I'm concerned. I don't know why this wasn't done sooner. Makes it so much simpler for adults looking for porn & for parents filtering internet for their children = win/win in my view.

[caseymoz]

16. Or for entire carriers to disable it.

Or charge you more for it, especially in a few months when net neutrality is buried.

Will somebody have to tell the carrier to turn the domain on so it's actually on their bill that they look at porn?

This is nothing but an unethical effort to limit free speech.

[jberryhill]

19. You go ahead and run that ISP

...and I'll run one that doesn't block .xxx, and how about we see where the customers go.

[caseymoz]

23. And I think you'd be wrong.

First, how much competition would they have? In my area, I think there are three broadband ISPs, and all three are worldwide corporations, no startups that I know. And that many can always agree not to provide it. Add a few slimy regulations discouraging it, and the they won't provide them at all. What if they all agree, with government help, not to provide it by default? It's also pretty easy to lobby or coerce that number of companies to just not provide it.

You're also wrong, I think, because even though people will watch porn if its easily assessable, they won't generally won't shame themselves by fighting for it, or demand it very strongly. It's the reason why before the Internet that Hustler or Penthouse didn't have a circulation of a billion. Porn use has gone up as technology has delivered it, and it could go down just as easily. I think that's called a "flexible" demand curve.

I think the .xxx might become a huge bust. I don't see the appeal of it. I could see almost porn sites not even bothering, and if creators of this scheme think it'll work because it's "convenient" for the consumer, it's not more convenient for people who watch porn, but only maybe for those who don't want to watch it. You can't appeal to a market of non-customers.

Why don't you just admit: the only reason why this is appealing is because it's easy to block. Everyone gets it. That's the first thing that people here who liked the idea cited. Nothing good will come from that.

We appear to fundamentally disagree about the glorious power of the free market to iron out any mistake or downright evil.

[jberryhill]

38. You don't have to use your ISP as a DNS provider, though

Your ISP can only block it if you are using them as a DNS resolver.

[digitaln3rd]

30. Do you really think that most porn site operators

Are going to opt to go with an .xxx domain over a .com?

[Ian David]

13. www.FreeRepublic.xxx n/t

[freshwest]

21. Maybe they'll quit trolling DU!

[hyphenate]

15. It's a damned shame that this wasn't able to be done earlier

It's the best friend to any parents with young children, and for those with teenagers.

Just think: a way to block almost every single web page devoted to adult entertainment. It's not going to be perfect, but the intent will be better than doing nothing. Is everyone aware that whitehouse.com was a porn site for about 8 years?

And look who the asshole was that delayed this move a lot sooner--GWB. Why am I not surprised? If he was so huffy about such moralistic shit, he should have dropped Cheney from the VP, and any other CPAC member out there.

There will still be sites devoted to porn, whether it's with the .xxx extension or one with a more traditional one, but being able to get rid of them with a blocker will be a boon for many.

[caseymoz]

17. Unless, of course, your carrier blocks it for you by default

And you have to tell them not to, or pay more to get them to do it (after net neutrality is buried). Either way, it's on record then that you look at porn, and not just occasionally, but enough to warrant you telling them. And what might your kids think when they find that the domain works on the computer?

This is a bad idea. Sexuality is as much a part of our lives as anything else. Efforts to censor it out of media have gone on since Gutenberg. The debate has raged on about how to treat it in media. Trying to hide it, or segregate it out never makes it better for the people who object in the first place, for much the same reason that washing ones hands never helps anybody who's obsessive-compulsive.

[jberryhill]

20. The Internet has run this experiment

When the alt. hierarchy was introduced to newsgroups propagated by UUCP and NNTP, can you remind me what happened to commercial newsfeed providers who didn't provide the alt.groups?

...or even WHY there became a commercial newsfeed market?

[caseymoz]

24. That was alt. Not human sexuality.

You're talking about entirely different rules here and different emotions coming into play.

[slackmaster]

26. Porn isn't exactly a comprehensive expression of human sexuality either

It's businesses selling titillating images and sounds, mainly to men who can't get laid.

[caseymoz]

27. Didn't say it was comprehensive.

But it's where business and human sexuality intersect, one of the places.

And given the size of the industry and how it absolutely drives innovation, it seems to be a larger market than just men who can't get laid.

[jberryhill]

37. Lol - it was all about the porn binaries /nt

[NashVegas]

29. Who Is Going to Decide What Goes to .xxx and How Will They Enforce It?

[blogslut]

33. The IFFOR

Stewart Lawley's supposed "foundation". In order to lease a dot xxx domain name a person will have to pay $60 to the ICM registry and $10 to the IFFOR - per domain, per year. However, cash in hand won't be enough. The registrant will have to be approved by the IFFOR in order to enjoy the privilege of leasing a dot xxx domain - that is when Lawley actually gets enough people to actually populate his "policy council".

[NashVegas]

34. And What If They Don't Want It?

What if they want to keep .com? Is Lawley going to make them switch? With what army?

[blogslut]

36. The TLD is voluntary

At the moment there is nothing forcing adult webmasters to register a dot xxx domain.

Of course, for years, there has been a self-labeling system for adult sites that works with any filtering software. While all adult sites don't use the label a great many of them do.

The adult industry has fought Lawley for years. Partly because the dot xxx is a hindrance to free speech but mostly because Lawley is a scumbag. If he really cared about "the kids" then he should have proposed a dot KIDS TLD. But then, he couldn't get away with charging $60 a pop for those.

[jberryhill]

39. .kids was in the original ICM registry proposal

Back in the year 2000 round TLD applications, the proposal was for both a .xxx and a .kids. If you want to blame someone for nixing .kids, it was the ICANN process and the act of Congress establishing .kids.us.

[blogslut]

40. That's news to me

Do you have a link for that?

EDIT ADD: Never mind. I found it. Wow. $250 a pop. No wonder nobody uses it.

[jberryhill]

41. You've probably also not heard..

...that the biggest problem adult publishers have on the Internet is getting customers to fill out a subscription or purchase form and click "submit", because there is so much financial fraud in .com and, frankly, a lot of that is adult.

With verification of registrant identities by the registry, and recourse for ripoffs, .xxx operators may see a conversion rate increase as a result of increased consumer confidence associated with the .xxx "brand". Think of it as the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval".

Nobody forces any business to join the Better Business Bureau or get ISO-9000 certified either. But there are things like that which businesses do - voluntarily - to enhance the perception of trustworthiness. Maybe .xxx will do that, or maybe it won't. We'll see.

I understand some of the FSC's points, but at the end of the day, if .xxx does not return value to its registrants, then it will simply fail. No big deal.

[blogslut]

42. People don't resist signing up because of fraud

People don't sign up because memberships cost too much and because there's so much free content out there, there no reason to pay for it. We sort of spoiled our own market - this much I admit.

As for your specious assertions, ICANN already stipulates identity verification from registrants. They also penalize offenders. Adult sites are some of the most trackable on the net thanks to Title 18/2257 laws. As well, our industry CC provider, VISA, requires unique best practices and affixes special penalties to businesses that deal in adult on the net. When it comes to "fraud" you're going to find more pre-ticked upsells and hidden costs coming from mainstream providers than you will from adult.

[jberryhill]

43. Lol ICANN Whois enforcement...

I'm fascinated by your characterization of "we'll see" as "specious".

Internet know-it-alls never have to wait and see what happens, do they?

[blogslut]

44. You mistake me

I was characterizing your statement that "a lot" of internet fraud comes from adult.

As for your wee dig at my being an internet know-it-all, I never claimed to be one. However, when I speak of the adult Internet in the possessive, it is because I have been working in the field for over a decade.

[Kablooie]

22. I gotta get me one of those new addresses! (wonder if I could log on here with it?)

Patrobertson.xxx

[plumbob]

32. Good. Now can I stop getting all those fucking popups while I'm actually

trying to get real information?

Those that want it will know where to get it, and those that don't can avoid it. Nothing wrong with that. Bound to save malware and spyware software a little work as well.




(He said "fucking popups", get it? Get it?) See? How annoying!

[Yavin4]

45. What Will Be or Won't Be Considered "Porn"?

Therein lies the real question and danger.